Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this o p in io n s hould not * be publishe d and is not pre cedent except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70050

BI LL Y J OH N GALL OW AY , P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t v. R IC KT H A L E R , D i rect or, T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce, C o r r e c tio n a l In s tit u tio n s D iv is io n , R espon den t
- A pp el l e e.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , D al l as D ivi s i o n
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , P R A D O , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P et i t i on er B i l l y Joh n G al l ow ay, convic t ed of capi t al m u rder an d sen t en ced to d ea th i n T ex a s state co u rt, see k s a ce rti fi ca te of ap p ea l a b ility (“C O A”) to ap pe alt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s pe t i t i o n f o rw r i to f

ha be as c o r pus u n der 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2254

. G al l ow ay all eges he received i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of
c o uns e lb e c aus e hi s t r i alc o uns e lfai l e d t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd p r e s e ntm i t i ga t i ng evi denc e dur i ng t he puni shm entphase of t r i al
. The d i st r i c tc our thel d t hat G al l ow ay h ad not s h o w n def i ci en tperf

orm an ce of

coun selan d p rej u di ce

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70050

2 r e s ul t i ng t he r e f

r o m . Bec aus e j ur i st s of r e as o n woul d no tf

i nd d e ba t ab l e t he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r u l i n g , Ga l l o wa y ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra C OAi s DE NI ED
. I . B A CK GRO UND G a ll o w a y w as convi ct ed an d sen t en ced t o death f or t h e 199 8 m u rder of D avid Log i e i n H u n tC ou n t y, T exas. T h e evi den ce presented t o t h e j u ry i n cl u ded
e v i d e n c e o f

t h e f o l l o wi n gb a s i c fa c t s . G a l l o wa y , h i s f r i e n d Ke v i n V a r g a , a n d t wo w om en , allof w h om w ere on pr ob a ti on or p a role w i th the S ou th D a k ota D epa rt m en tof

C o rr e ct i on s, deter m i n ed to bri n g i n som e m on ey by robbery or
ex torti on . T h e w om en m et L og i e, th e v i cti m , at a h otel an d co n vin ced h i m to l eave w i t h t hem i n L ogi e’ s rent alc ar . G al l ow ay and Varga f ol l ow ed i n a c ar o bt ai ne d f

r o m a m an Var ga ha d p r e vi ou s l y ki l l e d. W he n Lo gi e ’ s c ars t o ppe d, G al l ow ay an d V arga bea t , ki l l ed, an d robbed L ogi e. G a llo w a yg a v e s p e c ific in s tr u c tio n s t o h is t r ia l a tt o r n e y s . H e s ta te d h e d id notw antt o “ pun k out” orl os e hi s “ t ough -gu y” i m age, and t hathi s at t or neys w e r e n o t t o p r e s e n t a n ye v id e n c e th a t s h ifte d b la m e to V a r g a . H e a ls o t o ld h is
a ttorn ey s n ot to p rese n t ev i d en ce t h a t w ou l d ca st h i s fa th er in a n eg a tive l i gh t, th o u g h m itig a tio n e v id e n c e o fte n co n c e r n s cir c u m s ta n c e s o f c h ild h o o d
. H is at t or neys pr es ent ed no m i t i gat i on e vi denc e at se nt enc i ng, and l at ers t at ed t hat t h is w a s fo rv a r io u s r e a s o n s , s o m e o f w h ic h w e r e r e l a t e d to G a ll o w a y ’s i nst r uct i ons . Af

t erG al l ow ay w as c onvi c t ed and s ent enc ed t o de at h, he f i l ed a 28 U
. S. C. § 2 25 4 pe t i t i o n a l l e gi ng i ne f fe c t ive a s s i st an ce o f c o uns e lb as e d o n t he al l eged fai l ur e o f

hi s c o uns e lt o pr o pe r l y pr e s e nta nd i nve s t i ga t e m i t i ga t i on e v i d e n c e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d Ga l l o wa y ’ s p e t i t i o n , a n d h e n o w s e e k s a C OA from this cou rt. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW B ec ause G al l ow ay f

i l ed hi s 28 U
. S. C

. § 2254 pet i t i on af t ert he e f

fec t i ve d ate of t h e A n t i t error i sm an d E f fect ive D eath P en al t y A ctof 199 6 (A E D P A ), P u b. L
. N o. 104

- 132 , 110 Stat. 121 4, hi s pet i t i on i s gov erned by the procedu resN o. 08- 70050

3 a n d s ta n d a r d s p r o v id e d th e r e in
. Se ePar rv . Q uar t e r m an , 472 F. 3d 245, 251–52 ( 5th C i r. 2 006 )

. U n der t h e A E D P A , a peti t i on er m u stobtai n a C O Abef ore a p p e a li n gth e d istr ict co u rt’s d e n ia l of h a b e a s r e li e f. 28 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1 )(A). T h is is a ju r is d ic tio n a l p r e r e q u is ite
. S ee Miller -E l v. Co ck re ll , 537 U
. S. 322, 336 (2 0 0 3 ). A C O A w i l lb e gr ant e d o nl y i f t he pe t i t i o ne r m ak e s “ a s ubs t ant i als ho w i ng o f th e d en i a l of a con sti tu ti on a l ri gh t. ” 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 22 5 3 (c) (2). W h i le th is t hr e s ho l d i nqui r y c al l s f o r“ an o ve r vi e w o f t he c l ai m s i n t he hab e as pe t i t i o n” a nd “a g e n e r a l a s s e s s m e n t o f th e irm e r its ,” th e c o u r t is n o t a llo w e d to e n g a g e in “fu ll
c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e fa c tu a lo rle g a l b a s e s a d d u c e d in s u p p o r t o f th e cla im s .” Mi l l e r - El , 5 3 7 U. S. a t3 3 6
. Ra t he r , “ [ t ] he p e t i t i o ne rm us td e m o ns t r a t e t hat
r eas onabl e j uri st s w oul d f i nd t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s as se s s m e nto f t he c ons t i t ut i onal cl a i m s d eb a tab l e or w ron g.” I d. at338 ( quot i ng S la ck v. McD a n iel, 529 U
. S. 473, 484 ( 200 0) )

. A n y dou bt regardi n g w h et h er t o gran ta C O Arequi res resol u t i on i n fa vo r of t h e p eti ti on er, a n d the cou rt m a y con sider th e seve ri ty of t h e p en a l ty i n m a k i n g t h a t d e te r m in a tio n . Ful l e rv . Jo hns o n, 114 F
. 3d 491 , 495 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON G al l ow ay asser t s t h at hi s at t orneys fai l ed to present m i t i gati on evi den ce i n th e ir p o s s ess i on , an d fa i l ed to con d u ct a m ore tho rou gh i n ve sti ga ti on i n to
o t he rpo s s ibl e m i t i ga t i o n e vi de nc e . W e di s c us s e ac h a r gum e nti n t ur n. A . St andard f

or i nef f ec t i ve as s i s t ance o f co un s el To s uc c e e d o n hi s i ne f fe c t ive as s i s t anc e c l ai m , G al l o w ay hadt o s at i s f y t he t w o - pr o ng t e s t e s t ab l i s he d i n S t ri cklan dv. W ash i ngt on , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. H e w as requir ed to prove by a p repon deran ce of the evi den ce that: (1) hi s at t orneys’ p e r fo r m a n c e w a s d e fic i e n t ; a n d (2 ) th e d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e p r eju d ic e d h is d efe n s e . I

d

. a t 6 8 7
. T h e fir s t p r o n gre q u ir e s G a llo w a yto p r o v e th a t h is
a tt o r n e y s ’re p r e s e n ta tio n fe ll b e lo w a n o b je c tiv e s ta n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . I d.N o. 08- 70050

4 a t 6 8 8
. W h e n a p e tit io n e ra r g u e s th a t h is a tt o r n e yfa ile d to a d e q u a te ly i n vest i gate m i t i gatio n e vi den ce, t h e proper i n qu i ry i s “ n otw h et h er c ou n sel shou l d h ave p resented a m i t i gati on case, . . . [bu t ] w h et h er t h e i n vest i gation
s upp o r t i ng c o uns e l ’ s de c i s i o n no tt o i nt r o duc e m i t i ga t i n g evi denc e o f [ t he de fe nda nt ’ s ] b ac kg r o und w a s itse lf re a so n a b le

. ” Wig g in s v . S m ith , 539 U
. S. 510, 5 2 3 (20 0 3 ). T h e se co n d p ro n gof St r i c klandre q u ir e s G a llo w a yto s h o w th a t “ th e r e is
a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t, b u t fo rco u n s e l’ s u n p r o fe s s io n a l e r r o r s , th e re s u lt of t h e p roce ed i n g w ou l d h a ve b e e n d ifferen t. ” St r i c kland , 466 U
. S. at694. Inh erent w i t h i n t h e prej u di ce requ i rem en t i s an el em en t of cau sati on . “ Iti s not
en ou gh f

or t h e defenda n t t o show t h at t h e err ors h ad som e conceivab l e ef fecton th e o u tc o m e o f th e p r o c e e d in g . V ir tu a llye v e r ya c t o ro m is s io n o f c o u n s e l w o u ld
m eett h at t est , . . . an d n otevery err or t h at c on ceiv a b ly coul d h ave i n f l u en ced th e ou tc o m e u n d erm i n es th e reli a b i l i ty of t h e res u l t of the pr oce ed i n g.” I

d. at 693. W h en deci di n g prej u di ce i n t h e contextof cap ita l sentenci n g, t h e court
m u st “ w ei gh t h e qu al i t y an d qua n t i t y of t h e ava i l able m i t i gatin g ev i den ce, i n cl u di ng t hatpr e s e nt e d i n po s t
- c o nvi c t i o n pr o c e e di ngs , a l o ng w i t h .
. . a ny a gg ra v a ti n g e vid en ce.” Bl ant o n v . Q uar t e r m an , 543 F
. 3d 230 , 236 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e q u e s tio n is th e n “w h e th e rth e ch a n g e s to th e m itig a tio n ca s e w o u ld hav e a r e as o nab l e pr o ba bi l i t y o f ca us i ng a j ur o rt o c hang e hi s o rhe rm i nd a bo ut i m p osin g th e d ea th pe n a l ty. ” I d. B . F a ilu r e to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e a lr e a d y a v a ila b le G a llo w a y ’ s p e tit io n a s s e r ts th a t a m p le m itig a tio n e v id e n c e w a s a v a ila b le to h i s attorn ey s, w h i ch s h ou l d h a ve be en pr ese n ted at sen ten ci n g b u t w a s n ot. Thi s e vi de nc e s ho w e d a t r o ubl e d c hi l dho o d, abus e att he hands o f hi s fat he r , a nd h is d r u gu s e s in c e a g e t w e lv e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t G a llo w a yco u ld
n otcl ai m i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce based on coun sel ’ s fai l u re to present m i t i gati onN o. 08- 70050

Although the Sup rem e Courthasendor se d vario us s etsof ABA Guid eline s asinstruc tive 1 onth e is su e of

r ea so nablen es s inr ep re se ntation , see Str icklan d , 46 6 U .S. at68 8–8 9, neither theSupr em e Courtn o rthiscourthave ever foundthe Gui delinesto be dis pos itive o f acl ai mof

in e f f e c tivea s s is ta n ce , s e e id

. (noting th at the Guideline s “are guide s to determinin gwh at isr ea so n ab le , butthey are o nly gu ides” (e mp h a si s a dded)) ; Ranso m v . Jones , 1 2 6 F
. 3 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7) (f in din g th at a f

ailur e t o m e e t th e s t an d ar ds of the Guideline s is not per s ein ef fe ctive a ssi st anceof cou n sel)

.

5 evi den ce because G al l ow ay h ad i n st ructed t h em n ot t o present cert ai n evi den ce, and any evi denc e no tpr ohibi t ed byG al l ow ay’ s i nst r uct i ons w oul d nothave
c ause d a j uro rt o c hange hi s orherm i nd abouti m pos i ng t he dea t h penal t y. G al l o w ay’ s att o r ne ys pr e s e nt e d s e ve r alj us t i f i c at i o ns f

o rt he i ri nac t i o n. T h e tri al t e am c o ns i s t e d o f t w o a t t o r ne ys , J e r r y D av i s a nd Denni s D av i s ( no rel ati on ) , an d thei r s en i or l egal assi st an t, P au l a M al acek. A l lt h ree w ere dep osed i n pri or Tex as ha beas proceedi n gs. Th e att orneys st ated t h ey bel i eved th a t e v id e n c e o f G a llo w a y ’ s d r u g u s e w o u ld n o t h a v e h a d a m itig a tin ge ffe c t in H u n t C ou n t y, T exas, an d i n factm ay h ave p rej u di ced t h e j u rors against G al l ow ay. Fu rt h erm ore, t h e att orneys st ated t h at t h ey di d not of fer t h e expert testim o n y o f D r. H op ew ell , a p sy ch ologist hired by the de fen se to ev a l u a te G al l o w ay , b e c aus e : ( 1) G al l o w aydi d no tc o o pe r at e w i t h t he ev al uat i o n, and t he t e s t i m o ny w o ul d t he r e f o r e b e l i m i t e d i n nat ur e ; a nd ( 2) ha d H o pe w e l lt e s t i f i e d, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n wo u l d h a v e b e e n e n t i t l e d t o e x a mi n e Ga l l o wa ywi t h t h e i ro wn psych ol ogi st , w h i ch could hav e been hi gh l y prej u di ci alt o G al l ow ay’ s c ase. W ith re g a rdto evid en ce of ch ild h o o d a b u s e , G a llo w a yh a s a s s e r te d th a t h is att orneys shou l d hav e i gn ored his i n st ructi on s and presented a m i t i gati on case. H e hi nges t hi s a rg u m en t on t he 2003 and 1989 e di t i ons of t he A m er i c an B ar A ssoc ia tion G u id e li n e s fo r th e A p p oi n t m en tan d P erf orm an ce of

D ef en se C ou n sel in D e a th P e n a ltyC a se s (“G u id e li n e s”). S ee2003 G u i del i n es § 10. 5 com m en t ary 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ S o me c l i e n t s w i l li n i t i a l l yi n s i s tt h a tt h e yw a n tt o b e e x e c u t e d
. . . s o me c lie n ts w ill w a n t t o co n te s t t h e i r g u i l t b u t n o t p r e s e n t m itig a tio n . . . . It is in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e fo rco u n s e l to s im p lya c q u ie s c e to s u c h w is h e s ”); i d.N o. 08- 70050

Thed is t rict court referred to our precede nts holdingth at a crimin al defen dantcannot 2 prevent hisattorn ey f ro m p re se ntin gevidencean d later allege inef fe ctive a ssi st ance . See, e. g. , Wood v. Quarterman , 49 1 F .3d 1 96, 203(5th Cir. 2 007) (“[T]his courth as h eld on several occa sion s that adefe ndant cannot instruct his counsel not to pre s en te vi denceat trial an d th enl ater cl aimth at hisl awyerp erform edd ef icie ntlyb yf

ollowin gth es e in structio n s.”), cert . de nied , 1 2 8S

. C t
. 1 0 8 7(2 0 0 8); Nixonv. E pps , 40 5 F .3d 3 18, 325–26 ( 5t h Ci r. 2 005) (fin ding th at coun sel was not ineffe ctive for failingto present a dditio nal miti gatin gevidenceoverth e defe n dant’ s obj ection); Au t ryv . McKask le , 72 7 F. 2d 3 58, 361 (5th Cir. 198 4) (“By no measure can [the defen dant] blo ck his lawyer’s efforts an dla ter cl aimth e re sultin gp erform ancewa s c on stitutionallyd ef icie nt. ”)

. 6 § 1 0. 7(A) ( 2) ( “ The i nve s t i ga t i o n r e ga r di ng pe nal t y s ho ul d b e c o nduct ed
r e g a r d le s s o f a n ys ta te m e n t b yt h e c lie n t t h a t e v id e n c e b e a r in gu p o n p e n a lty is
n ott o be col l ect ed or presented. ” ) ; 198 9 G u i del i n es § 11 .4. 2 com m en t ary ( “ Capi t alc o uns e lf

r e que nt l y m us tno to nl y s t r ugg l e a ga i ns tt he pub l i c a nd p r o s e c u tio n b u t a g a in s t t h e s e lf-d e s tr u c tiv e b e h a v io ro f th e clie n t a s w e ll.” (i n t e r n a l q u o t a t io n m a r k s o m it t e d ) )

. T h e d is t r ic tc o u r tc o n s id e r e d G a ll o w a y ’s
a r g u m e n ts b a s e d o n th e G u id e lin e s , a n d reje c te d th e m in lig h t o f F ifth C ir c u it p rece d en t. 2 T h e at t o r ne ys a l s o a s s e r t e d t hatt he y di d no tw antt o g o against G al l ow ay’ s i n st ructi on s because they w ere af rai d that G al l ow ay w ou l d react
n egativel y an d p ossibl y di srupt t h e proceedi n g ( an d, presum ably, t h ereby h u rt h i s ow n case) or att em pt to h a rm th e att orneys. M al acek stat ed i n her de po s i t i o n, ho w e ve r , t hatG al l o w ayne ve re xp l i c i t l y s ai d any t hi ng t o i ndi c at e he
m i ght bec om e vi ol ent , and Jer r y D avi s c l ai m ed he w as never af r ai d of G al l ow ay. H aving consi dered G al l ow a y ’ s argum en t s un der t h e Miller -E l s t and ar d,
w e con cl u d e th a t he i s n ot en ti tl ed to a C O Ao n th i s gr ou n d
. R ea son a b l e j u ri sts coul d d ebate t h e const i t u t i on ala pp ropri ateness of w i t h h ol di n g evi den ce out of sim p l e fe a r tha t G a l l ow a y w ou l d h a rm h i s attorn ey s. T h e d i stri ct cou rt, h ow ever, al so consi dered i n dep en den tj u st i f i cat i on s f

or t h e att orneys’deci si on s, based on thei r c on cl u si on s t h at t h e potenti alm i t i gati on evi den ce c ou l d h u rt G al l o w ay ’ s c as e, a nd o n t he po s s ibi l i t y t hatG al l o w ayw o ul d d i s r uptt heN o. 08- 70050

7 p ro ce e d in g s if h is in str u ctio n s w e re n o t follow e d a n d th e re b y“p o rtr a yh im [se lf] t o t h e j u ry as a dan ger t o soc i et y. ” C o n sid e rin g al lof t h e of fered bases f

or w i t h h ol din g th e ev i den ce, on thei r m eri t s and i n l i gh tof t h e prej u di ce r e qui r e m e nt , G al l o w ayha s no tes t ab l i s he d “ t hatre as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d f i nd th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a s s e s s m e n t o f th e co n s tit u tio n a l cla im s d e b a ta b le o rw r o n g .” Mi l l e r - El , 537 U
. S. at338 ( quot i ng S lack , 529 U
. S. at484 )

. A c c o r di ngl y, w e de ny G al l ow ay’ s r equ estf or a C O Aon the i ssue of failu re to present m i t i gati on evi den ce. C . F ai l u re t o i n vest i gate potenti al m i t i gati on evi de n ce G a l l ow a y h a s als o all eg ed tha t t ri a lcou n sel fa i l ed to con d u ct ad eq u a te i n vest i gati on i n t o m i t i gati on evi den ce, t h u s leavi n g valuab l e evi den ce u n di scovered. G al l ow ay cl ai m s hi s at t orneys w ou l d hav e di scovered evi den ce of
c hi l dhood phys i c alabus e, s exualabus e, educ at i on a lpr obl em s, ps yc hol ogi c al d i sord ers, an d all eg ed h ea d trau m a f rom a ch i l d h oo d car a cciden t. W i t h re sp ectt o evi den ce r egard i n g G al l ow ay’ s c h i l dh ood ab u se, educ at i onalpr obl em s, and t he c arac c i dent , t he di st r i c tc our thel d t hatG al l ow ay hadno ts ho w n a r e as o nab l e pr o ba bi l i t y t hat t he e vi de nc e , had i tb e e n a dm i t t e d,
w ou l d h a ve ca u sed a j u ror t o recon sider h i s or h er d ecisi on reg a rd i n g th e d ea th p e n a lt y . I ta ls o n o t e d th a ts u c h e v id e n c e w o u ld n e c e s s a r il yh a v e c a s tG a ll o w a y ’s fa t h e rin a n e g a t iv e lig h t , a n d w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n t r a r yto G a ll o w a y ’s in s tr u c tio n s . T h e r e fo r e , e v e n if th e a tt o r n e y s h a d d is c o v e r e d th is e v id e n c e , it concl u de d t he y s t i l lm i ghtno tha ve b e e n a bl e t o ut i l i z e t hi s e vi de nc e dur i ng se nt enc i ng. W i t h r e ga r d t o t he e vi de nc e o f G al l o w ay ’ s a l l e ge d s exu al a bu s e a tt he h a n d s o f a n e ig h b o r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d t h a t c o u n s e l w a s n o t d e fic ie n t in fai l i ng t o di sc ove rt he i nf or m at i on. The c our tnot ed t hat G al l ow ay hi m se l f w as th e on l y pe rson w i th k n ow l ed ge of th e sexu a l a b u se, a n d th a t G a l l ow a y fa i l ed to d i s c l o s e a n ys u c h e v i d e n c e t o h i s a t t o r n e y s d e s p i t e t h e i re f f o r t s t o t a l k wi t h h i m.N o. 08- 70050

8 F in a lly , th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e ld th a t t h e a tt o r n e y s w e r e n o t d e fic ie n t in fai l i n g t o i nve s t i ga t e G all ow ay’ s psychol ogi cali ssues. Th e att orneys i n facthi red
a ps yc ho l o gi s t , D r . H o pe w e l l , i n a n a t t e m ptt o di s c o ve rpo t e nt i al l y m i t i ga t i ng e vi de n ce of

p s yc ho l o gi c aldi s o r de r s , b utG al l o w aydi d no tc o o pe r at e w i t h t he
e va l uat i o n. H aving consi dered t h e argu m en t s, w e concl u de that G al l ow ay h as not m et h is b u rd e n o f sh o w in g “th a t re a so n a b le j u rist s w o u ld fin d th e d istr ic t c o u r t ’s
a sse ssm en t of

the con sti tu ti on a lcl a i m s d eb a tab l e or w ron g.” Mi l l e r - El , 5 37 U
. S. at338 ( quot i ng S lack , 529 U
. S

. at 484 )

. A ccor di n gl y, w e den y G al l ow ay’ s r equ est f or a C O Aon the i ssue of hi s at t orneys’fai l u re t o i n vest i gate. I V . C ONC L US I ON Juri st s of r eas on w oul d not f i nd i t debat abl e w het her t he di st r i c tc our tw as c o r r e c ti n i t s r u l i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y , Ga l l o wa y ’ s r e q u e s tf o ra C OAi s DE NI ED
.